CIT v. Nirav Modi

390 ITR 292High Court2017#275 most cited

What is CIT v. Nirav Modi authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 merely on the ground of "inadequate enquiry" by the Assessing Officer (AO) if the AO has conducted an enquiry, examined evidence, and formed a possible view. For Section 263 to apply, the PCIT must demonstrate that the assessment order is both erroneous (contrary to law) and prejudicial to the revenue.

286

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nirav Modi · CIT v Nirav Modi · Section 263 · revisionary power · inadequate enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · assessment order erroneous · twin conditions · Assessing Officer enquiry · Principal Commissioner

Also reported as

71 Taxmann.com 272241 Taxmann 255138 DTR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquirysection 263(1)malabar industrialassessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialrevision under section 263section 54fsection 263section 26section 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirav Modi

Shri Shaktidham Infraventure Private Limited, Bilaspur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 71/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR
Section 143Section 263

…aventure Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 19 - proceedings cannot be inflicted upon the assessee in these circumstances. 14. In support of such view, we also take note of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) where in somewhat similar circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal to cancel the order passed under s.263 of the Act was upheld. Thus, driven by the precedent, where the inquiry towards ‘source of source’ is not found to be the sacrosanct requirement of law, the alleged inadequacy in this respect should not be fastened on the assessee.…

Mahabir Prasad, Sarguja vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 54/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mahabir Prasad Pcit, Raipur-1 Ajirma, Raghavpuri P.S Raipur Vs Jaynagar, Surajpur, Sarguja Chhattisgarh Pan : Bphpp 3014 E Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Mahabir Prasad PCIT, Raipur-1 Ajirma, Raghavpuri P.S Raipur Vs Jaynagar, Surajpur, Sarguja Chhattisgarh PAN : BPHPP 3014 E Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 13.08.2021 Date of pronouncement 02.09.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld.…

M/S Active Tools (P). Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Jalandhar

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…g Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. 34. The observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 on this issue is as under : 4a) The powers u/s. 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions viz. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. This power cannot be exercised unless the ITA 260/Amr/2019 29 Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Offic…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…ng Officer would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question 32. The observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 on this issue is as under : 4 (a) The powers u/s. 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions viz. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. This power cannot be exercised unless the Commissioner is able to establish that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and…

Bhagwan Das Harwani, Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 269S

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 05/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke Bhagwan Das Harwani, Pr. CIT, Vs. Prop. M/s Parwati Oil Mill, Ajay Udaipur Nagar, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABHPH1392L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) & Sh. Subhash Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :…

Amitanil Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.03/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Amitanil Modi (Huf) बिधम/ Pr.Cit-33 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan B-401, Subh Shanti Complex Vs. M.B.Road, Dhanukar Wadi Bkc, Bandra(E) Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahha5667G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajiv Harit, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29/03/2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai In View Of Section 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. “ The Hon.Pr..Cit Erred In Holding The Order Framed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 On 07.12.2016, To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Accordingly The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Hon.Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Was Not Valid & Justified By Law.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…tanil Modi(HUF) AY 2011-12 not justifiable in accordance with law, hence the order u/s 263 of the Act is liable to be set aside. In support of these contentions the Ld. AR for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Mody, 390 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and Maharashtra Engineering vs PCIT Kolhapur in ITA No.859/Pun/2018. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has refuted the said contention and argued that the provisions u/s 263 has rightly been invoked by the PCIT and in support of his contentions the Ld. DR…

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2015-16 M/s Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. CIT-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AATFS 4110J Appellant by S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has chall…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. CIT Choursiya(Prop. of M/s Laxmi Ujjain MP बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AEMPC3634G Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT Date of Hearing: 07.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the assumptio…

Pooja Marketing, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT-31, C/o. Shri Ketan J. Shah Room No.301, C-13, 3rd Floor, C-1, Ami Darshan D.B. Patil Road Pratykshakar Bhavan Malad (E) BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 097 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAOFP2090F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, Shri Ravi Sawana & Shri Samyak Lohade Revenue by Shri B.V. Jhaveri Date of Hearing 24/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2596/Mum/2019…

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Us, We Find That The Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…en by the ld AO on the impugned issue on the allowability of LTCL. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom). It is also pertinent to note that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) preferred by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgement of Nirav Modi was dismissed in 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC). 10. We also find that the Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act , which was heavily relied upon by the ld DR before us, would not apply…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. CIT-I, AH/29, HIG, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AHFPP4068H Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. CIT-2, Prop. M/s. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. ACMPK2991E Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 8.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appell…

Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6481/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N.PRASAD, JM & SHRI SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM M/s. Tata Realty and Vs. Principal Commissioner of Infrastructure Limited Income tax-2 2nd Room No.344, 3rd Floor Floor, Elphinstone Building, 10, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Road, Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 PAN/GIR No.AACCT6242L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Arati Vissanji Revenue by Shri Alok Singh Date of Hearing 09/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement 22/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.6481/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2015-16 preferred by…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Born) ; [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Born)." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Born) has held that: "the decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard . . . . ." The Hon'ble Gujarat High…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3425/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 71

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Bombay House, 24 Income Tax (LTU)-2 29th Floor, Centre 1 Homi Mody Street Hutatma Chowk World Trade Centre Mumbai – 400 001 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400 005 PAN/GIR No. AAACT2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rajan Vora Revenue by Shri Deepkant Prasad Date of Hearing 07/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement 05/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.3425/Mum/2019 preferred by the order aga…

M/S. Yash Dev Mahajan & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2040/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Yash Dev Mahajan & Sons Pr. CIT (HUF) B-492, Vs Delhi-10 New Friends Colony New Delhi New Delhi -110065 PAN No. AAAHY3243D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ashok Malik, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR Date of hearing: 01/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 03/02/2021 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: With this appeal the appellant has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 263 of t…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs DCIT, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. PAN: AIGPS3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR. Date of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed aga…

Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT- IV, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi Iv Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi Pan: Aaace 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi IV Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi PAN: AAACE 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Assessee by : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2021 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, With this appeal, the appellan…

Ranjana Construction Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, 11, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4308/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh: A.Y : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N.R. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

…ct and, therefore, the 6 Ranjana Construction Pvt. Ltd. learned PCIT has no jurisdiction to set-aside the order of the Assessing Officer. In defence of his argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT vs Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) wherein the same ratio has been laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. On merits, the learned representative of the assessee submitted that even considering the merits of the case, the view taken by the Assessing Officer was the correct view as in this case, the agreement to sell was executed on 12.06.2010 and the sale of flat was fin…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…f enquiry" and not to remedy a case of "insufficient enquiry". The ld AR relied on the following decisions in defense of his arguments: ClT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167) (Del HC) CIT vs Shreepati Holdings (ITA No,1879 of 2013) (Bom HC) CIT vs Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292) (Bom HC) {SLP dismissed in 77 taxmann.com15) 7.8. The ld AR argued that after ascertaining that all amalgamations were Court approved, the AO in not being any further influenced by the amalgamations of the various companies in the chain of holding, for the purposes of deciding and allowing the claim of cost of Rs.5,857/- crores against the sale…